National Football League of "Merica: Week 1
- Thread starter Rook05
- Start date
because jones didnt get out of bounds and they would have had to rush to line to spike it
probably wanted to take one more shot at the end zone
The Lions lucked out in this one. just a dumb football team always
So let's count the clock mistakes there:
1. Caldwell doesn't take timeout with 1:30 left and the Colts likely to score.
2. Pagano DOES take timeout with 1:15 left on 2nd and goal.
3. Ebron tries to get an extra yard instead of trying to go out (maybe possible) or just going down (save 5 seconds)
4. Marvin Jones doesn't go out of bounds (could argue knew it was easy FG range expected them to run it down then TO, but probably just dumb).
5. Lions then take TO with 12 seconds left.
1. Caldwell doesn't take timeout with 1:30 left and the Colts likely to score.
2. Pagano DOES take timeout with 1:15 left on 2nd and goal.
3. Ebron tries to get an extra yard instead of trying to go out (maybe possible) or just going down (save 5 seconds)
4. Marvin Jones doesn't go out of bounds (could argue knew it was easy FG range expected them to run it down then TO, but probably just dumb).
5. Lions then take TO with 12 seconds left.
I think the play call was for Stafford to roll left and if the short out wasn't wide open for a small gain right at the sidelines, he should throw it away. Probably wanted to gain a few more yards since Prater had missed an extra point earlier.
I think this is spot on. Sprint out, if the out is there and the receiver has some space to get out, take a chance, if not, fire it away.
So not sure how much this has been talked about. The final 4 teams from last year played each other this year and the two teams that won ( afc pats/elways) had novice QBs.
That kind of cool
That kind of cool
I think the main reason is that any foul (like a false start, delay of game) would have caused a 10 second run off and ended the game if they had taken the time out with less than 10 seconds left.
Maybe there's a more proper thread for this. Commenting on it because it has been an issue this week in the NFL
I'm curious about the players not standing for the national anthem. I, for one, think they not only have the right to do it, they are also not being unpatriotic if they are using it to protest what they believe to be injustice. I also think people have the right to criticize them if they disagree.
Ok, that said, something to consider. From 2000-2013, NFL players committed violent crimes at a rate above (and in many cases, well above) similar demographics of men who do not play in the NFL.
"The combined measure of 2000 to 2013 found that NFL players have been arrested for violent crimes at a rate above 20- and 30-something men as a whole in the 21st century overall.
Violent crime, as categorized by the researchers, included things like murder, manslaughter, DUI manslaughter, robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, rape, battery, domestic violence, child abuse and kidnapping."
So we have a demographic of people who commit more violent crimes (as a percentage) than men their age who do not play in the NFL. So why aren't NFL players protesting this form of injustice? The injustice that their peers are perpetrating on women and kids? Why aren't they protesting this form of injustice?
I'm curious about the players not standing for the national anthem. I, for one, think they not only have the right to do it, they are also not being unpatriotic if they are using it to protest what they believe to be injustice. I also think people have the right to criticize them if they disagree.
Ok, that said, something to consider. From 2000-2013, NFL players committed violent crimes at a rate above (and in many cases, well above) similar demographics of men who do not play in the NFL.
"The combined measure of 2000 to 2013 found that NFL players have been arrested for violent crimes at a rate above 20- and 30-something men as a whole in the 21st century overall.
Violent crime, as categorized by the researchers, included things like murder, manslaughter, DUI manslaughter, robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, rape, battery, domestic violence, child abuse and kidnapping."
So we have a demographic of people who commit more violent crimes (as a percentage) than men their age who do not play in the NFL. So why aren't NFL players protesting this form of injustice? The injustice that their peers are perpetrating on women and kids? Why aren't they protesting this form of injustice?
Aren't runoffs only when the clock was running when the dead ball penalty occurred?
Maybe so. If a cop assaults a young black man, say, that automatically gets put in the category of injustice. Shouldn't an NFL player with privilege beating a woman or a child also be put in the category of injustice?
And if we say it's not an injustice if the NFL player gets arrested and put in jail for it (for justice would have been carried out), wouldn't it also not be an injustice if the cop who assaults a young black man gets the proper consequences?
Or do we need to wait to see what actually happens to the person doing the assaulting before we can call it an injustice?
I don't really want to get into this too much. I just am trying to point out that these NFL players - who have the right to protest anything they want - are committing a disproportionately high number of violent crimes. Maybe they should take time trying to straighten themselves out is all I'm saying.
You are correct: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/timingfinal
So there goes my theory and Caldwell is still who we think he is.
What the hell are you talking about? You can disagree with the method the players have chosen to protest all you want, but suggesting that NFL players as a group do not have the credibility to protest because a disproportionate number of them have committed violent crimes is stupid.
There are many NFL players who do all the right things off the field and in the community. Their ability to speak out against injustice when they see it is not compromised because a guy like Greg Hardy is a piece of shit.
Shocking absolutely no one, RGIII is hurt and possibly out a while.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/12/reports-rg3-could-miss-significant-time/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/12/reports-rg3-could-miss-significant-time/
I didn't say I disagreed with the NFL players' method of protesting. I said, just two posts of mine ago, "I, for one, think they not only have the right to do it, they are also not being unpatriotic if they are using it to protest what they believe to be injustice."
There are many players who do great things. There are a disproportionate number of players who beat women and children. There are many cops and normal citizens who do great things. There is also injustice.
I'm not saying they don't have credibility. I'm saying they have problems of their own, within their own ranks. It's fine to protest injustice (as I have already suggested). It's not unfair to note that this same group of people protesting injustice commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes.
But I'll drop it. Carry on.
I think that the most interesting result of the week is the decision by many head coaches to kick the ball to the 1-inch line on kickoffs as a way to force the team to return the ball. Yes, putting the ball on the 25 means that more returners will kneel in the endzone, but the new rule is very strongly going to incentivize the semi-pooch* kick that forces a returner to run into the teeth of the special teams unit at around the 10 yard line. So far in very early action it seems like the 25-yard-touchback rule has had exactly the opposite effect as one would have thought the rule intended.
*I realize these are not pooch kicks by any means, but is there an accepted name for this special teams play?
*I realize these are not pooch kicks by any means, but is there an accepted name for this special teams play?
Actually, yes, it is quite unfair to lump all NFL players in the same bucket like that. You said "Maybe they should take time trying to straighten themselves out is all I'm saying". There are over 1600 players on NFL rosters, none of whom actually have the power to cut a player who commits an assault. Given that they don't decide whether or not NFL teams sign serial abusers, what, exactly, do you mean by "straightening themselves out"?
What should Devin McCourty (to name one player on the Pats who participated) do specifically in your eyes before he raises his fist at the conclusion of the anthem?
And with that I'll drop it because your posts are riddled with stupid.
What should Devin McCourty (to name one player on the Pats who participated) do specifically in your eyes before he raises his fist at the conclusion of the anthem?
And with that I'll drop it because your posts are riddled with stupid.
Says the guy who thought I disagreed with their form of protest when in my previous post I literally said just the opposite, and when corrected, didn't even acknowledge the correction. Look, I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me and pointing out mistakes I make (believe me, there's plenty of them), but when you get so much wrong in your criticism of me, it's a little hard to take seriously.
But whatever. Back to football.
I just can't figure out what your angle is. You agree they have the right to protest (I stand corrected!), you don't think that the disproportionate number of violent criminals in their ranks robs them of credibility.
So what's your point? What should Devin McCourty do before he raises his fist before the Dolphin game next Sunday that would in your mind equate to "straightening out" his fellow players?
So what's your point? What should Devin McCourty do before he raises his fist before the Dolphin game next Sunday that would in your mind equate to "straightening out" his fellow players?
Last edited:
The ESPN half time analysts are much more coherent and less murdery. Can't put my finger on it.
